Bombay High Court

MANOJKUMAR SURESHCHAND LUNKAD AND ORSversusPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS

Decided: 9 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The notice of possession is merely a consequence of the Court’s earlier order and does not create a sufficient change in circumstances; therefore the application for interim relief is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners sought an interim order to stay the physical possession of a flat that had been secured by Punjab National Bank under the Securitisation Act. The High Court had earlier rejected their interim relief on 2 September 2026, reasoning that they had not made out a prima facie case. After a notice dated 7 September 2026 was issued for possession on 9 September 2026, the petitioners filed a fresh application, arguing that the notice created a new circumstance. The Court held that the notice was a direct consequence of its earlier order and did not constitute an extraordinary change warranting a review of the earlier denial. Consequently, the application for interim relief was dismissed, but the Court directed that the Collector and the Resident Naib Tehsildar be added as respondents and set procedural deadlines for affidavits and further hearing.

Issues considered

The issuance of a notice for physical possession constitutes a change in circumstances justifying reconsideration of the earlier denial of interim relief.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to interim relief to prevent possession of the secured asset.
Whether the Collector and Resident Naib Tehsildar should be impleaded as parties to the writ petition.
Whether the Securitisation Act or its Rules prescribe a specific time‑frame for execution of a Section 14 order.

Legislation cited

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — s. Section 14
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 — s. Rule 8, Rule 9

Subjects

interim relief
possession
Securitisation Act
writ petition
amendment of parties
notice of possession
high court
review

Judgment

907-IA-7153-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7153 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9746 OF 2026

Manojkumar Sureshchand Lunkad and others … Petitioners
Versus
Punjab National Bank and others … Respondents
SWEETY
RAJU
BHALERAO ******
Digitally signed
by SWEETY
RAJU
Mr. R.D. Soni, a/w Ms. Sonali Jain and Ms. Anushree Talekar, for Petitioners.
BHALERAO
Date:
2026.09.09
19:23:05 +0530 Ms. Sudha Kolati, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. G.P., a/w Ms. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for
Respondent/State.
Mr. Charles De’souza, a/w Mr. Rupak Sawangikar, a/w Ms. Pragati Gothi, i/b
Puneet Gogad for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 09th SEPTEMBER 2026.
PC:

1. This application is moved the light of an order passed by the Supreme

Court yesterday, i.e., 08/09/2026, in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31856

of 2026, whereby the Petitioners were permitted to file an application

seeking interim relief in the context of a notice issued for taking physical

possession of the subject property (secured asset) today, i.e. 09/09/2026.

2. The said Special Leave Petition was filed against the order dated

02/09/2026 passed by this Court in the present writ petition, whereby

Bhalerao 1
907-IA-7153-2026.doc

reasons were recorded while rejecting the prayer for interim relief made by

the Petitioners. In the order dated 02/09/2026, this Court had recorded

detailed reasons as to why the Petitioners did not deserve interim relief in

the facts and circumstances of the present case.

3. The order of the Supreme Court dated 08/09/2026 passed in Special

Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31856 of 2026 reads as follows:

“1. On an oral mention made by learned counsel for the Petitioners,
the matter is taken on board.

2. In view of the fact that a notice re:taking possession of the house
has been issued yesterday, the High Court is requested to hear the
Petitioners’ prayer for interim relief tomorrow, i.e., 09.09.2026,
provided that the Petitioners prefer an application seeking such a relief
before the High Court today itself, if not filed already.

3. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.

4. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

5. As a result, the pending interlocutory application also stands
closed.”

4. It is to be noted that in paragraph 3 of the above quoted order, the

Supreme Court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits

of the case.

5. In such circumstances, we put a query to the learned counsel for the

Petitioners as to what was the change in circumstance that required the

prayer made in the present application to be considered, which is virtually

seeking a review of our order dated 02/09/2026, whereby interim relief was

Bhalerao 2
907-IA-7153-2026.doc

specifically rejected. In response, the learned counsel for the Petitioners

submitted that after the said order dated 02/09/2026 was passed, on

07/09/2026, the Resident Naib Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate had

issued notice dated 07/09/2026, directing that possession of the secured

asset would be taken on 09/09/2026. According to the learned counsel for

the Petitioners, this is the circumstance warranting filing of the present

application.

6. According to us, the aforesaid notice annexed to this application is a

fallout and a consequence of the prayer for interim relief being rejected by

the reasoned order by this Court on 02/09/2026. Thus, issuance of the

notice for taking physical possession cannot in itself be a circumstance to re-

agitate the question of interim relief in the present writ petition.

7. The learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e., the bank and its

authorized officer and the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 5, being

the auction purchasers, have opposed the prayer made in the present

application. The learned counsel have tendered additional affidavits in order

to place before this Court the chronology of events that took place after the

order dated 02/09/2026 was passed by this Court rejecting interim relief in

the writ petition. The said affidavits are taken on record. Copies of the

affidavits have been served on the learned counsel for the Petitioners today

who seeks time to respond to the said affidavits.

8. In the affidavits filed on behalf of the said Respondents, serious

Bhalerao 3
907-IA-7153-2026.doc

allegations have been made against the Petitioners. It is alleged that after

interim relief was rejected by order dated 02/09/2026, on 03/09/2026,

when the officers of the Respondent No. 1 Bank reached the site for taking

physical possession of the subject flat (secured asset), the Petitioners

allegedly physically obstructed the officials of the Respondent No. 1 Bank

from taking possession of the secured asset. It is alleged that while the

exercise was about half completed, an instruction was allegedly received

from the Collector to the Naib Tehsildar not to proceed further with the said

exercise. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the auction purchasers, it is

alleged that the Collector acted at the behest of higher authorities of the

State Government. These are allegations which the Petitioners would like to

meet and an opportunity certainly needs to be granted to the Petitioners.

But, it is not disputed that possession as attempted by the Respondent No. 1

Bank and its officials could not be taken on 03/09/2026.

9. It is also alleged that the Collector kept a ‘hearing’ of the matter on

04/09/2026 and hence, ultimately physical possession could not be taken

and the said notice dated 07/09/2026 was issued by the Resident Naib

Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate for taking physical possession today, i.e.,

09/09/2026.

10. We are of the opinion that, not only the Petitioners should be given an

opportunity to respond to such serious allegations, but the Collector and

Resident Naib Tehsildar should be directed to be made parties to the present

Bhalerao 4
907-IA-7153-2026.doc

writ petition, so that the said officers also have a fair opportunity to meet the

said serious allegations made by the Respondents in this petition. The

Collector and Resident Naib Tehsildar cannot be condemned behind their

back and therefore, we intend to issue appropriate directions for adding the

Collector and Resident Naib Tehsildar as party Respondents to the present

writ petition.

11. Coming to the prayer made in the present application, we are of the

opinion that the order dated 02/09/2026 passed by this Court is a detailed

reasoned order, wherein this Court came to a considered conclusion that

interim relief could not be granted to the Petitioners. The said order reads as

follows:

“. In this petition, notice was issued on 03.08.2026. The pleadings are
complete.
2. The petition was circulated in the morning session urgently on the
ground that physical possession of the subject flat will be taken
tomorrow (03.09.2026) as per notice issued in that regard.

3. In the morning session, the learned counsel for the Petitioners was
held up in another Court, and therefore, the petition was taken up in
the afternoon session at 3:00 p.m.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners is pressing for interim relief
and in support thereof, he has invited attention of this Court to the
impugned order dated 23.07.2026 passed by the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). It is submitted that crucial aspects of the
matter raised on behalf of the Petitioners were ignored by the DRAT
and it can be said that the issues going to the root of the matter were
not effectively considered and dealt with by the DRAT while
dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioners.

5. In this context, it was submitted that the requirements of Rules 8
and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 framed under
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Bhalerao 5
907-IA-7153-2026.doc

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act) were
not followed. It was submitted that the sale notice, itself, was
defective, and therefore, all consequential steps taken in the matter by
the Respondent bank (secured creditor) were rendered illegal, which
the DRAT failed to appreciate. It was further submitted that the
valuation reports on the basis of which the reserved price of the
subject flat was fixed was also untenable in the face of the fact that
the valuation reports indicated depressed value of the subject flat. It
was submitted that if an opportunity is granted, it can be
demonstrated before this Court that the order of the DRAT as well as
the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), both, deserve to be
set aside in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

6. The prayer for interim relief is vehemently opposed by the
Respondent bank (secured creditor) as well as the auction purchasers
i.e. Respondent Nos.3 to 5. It is submitted that the Petitioners are
chronic defaulters and that, they had taken credit facilities from the
Respondent No.1 Bank by mortgaging other properties as well and
that they have been proceeded against in respect of the said defaults
also.

7. It is further submitted that the points sought to be raised before the
DRAT were not taken in the original proceeding i.e. the securitisation
application before the DRT, and therefore, the Petitioners cannot be
permitted to argue such points for the first time either before the
DRAT or in writ jurisdiction before this Court. It is further brought to
the notice of this Court that the subject auction that eventually led to
the auction sale of the flat and the auction purchasers coming into
picture, was the third attempt at auction sale. The first two attempts
did not succeed and all through the Petitioners were aware about the
auction sale proceedings undertaken by the Respondent No.1 Bank. It
was further submitted that the securitisation application was filed
after the sale certificate was issued in favour of the Respondents -
auction purchasers.

8. It was further brought to the notice of this Court that the
Respondent Bank had specifically pointed out in its affidavit in reply in
the appeal before the DRAT that the Petitioners have other properties,
particularly another flat in respect of which also, the Respondent No.1
bank was constrained to take action under the Securitisation Act. It
was brought to the notice of the DRAT that symbolic possession of the
subject flat was also taken and on this basis, it was submitted that the
plea taken on behalf of the Petitioners that if physical possession of the
subject flat is taken, they would be rendered homeless, is not
supported by the material on record.

Bhalerao 6
907-IA-7153-2026.doc

9. We have considered the rival submissions. The learned counsel for
the Petitioners is pressing for urgent interim relief on the ground that
if physical possession of the subject flat is taken, serious prejudice
would be caused to Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, as they would be rendered
homeless. Having perused the documents on record, we are of the
opinion that the Petitioners have failed to make out a prima facie case
in their favour that absence of interim relief in the present case, will
cause serious prejudice as projected on their behalf in oral arguments
before this Court.

10. We do find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the
Respondent No.1 Bank that the Petitioners are indeed presently in
physical possession of another flat in respect of which the Respondent
No.1 bank has taken steps under the Securitisation Act and as on
today, only symbolic possession thereof has been taken. Hence, we are
not impressed with the arguments made on behalf of the Petitioners
that in the absence of interim relief in the present writ petition, they
would be rendered homeless.

11. Apart from this, in the context of examining the contentions raised
on behalf of the Petitioners with regard to the question of prima facie
case, we have perused the documents and material on record. Prima
facie, we find that the contention sought to be raised on behalf of the
Petitioners regarding violation of statutory rules was not specifically
pleaded in the original proceeding i.e. the securitisation application
before the DRT. General and vague grounds were raised and on the
basis of the same, an attempt was made before the DRAT to
specifically assail the action taken by the Respondent No.1 as being in
violation of the aforementioned Rules framed under the Securitisation
Act.

12. The arguments pertaining to depressed valuation of the subject
flat are to be appreciated in the backdrop of the admitted position on
record that the first two attempts at auction sale by the Respondent
No.1 Bank were not even challenged by the Petitioners. The
securitisation application was admittedly filed after the auction
purchasers came into picture and sale certificate dated 23.11.2020
was issued in their favour.

13. After having approached the DRT by filing the securitisation
application at such a stage, the Petitioners are now seeking to assail
the concurrent orders passed by the DRT and DRAT on the ground of
defective valuation of the subject flat. We are of the opinion that when
the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal, the said aspect
can be considered and decided.

Bhalerao 7
907-IA-7153-2026.doc

14. It is asserted on behalf of the Respondent No.1 Bank that if the
amounts deposited by the Petitioners before the DRAT as a pre-
condition for entertaining the appeal are not taken into account, as on
today, the amount due from the Petitioners would be in the range of
about Rs.5.68 crores. This is another factor taken into consideration
by this Court in declining the prayer for interim relief fervently
pressed on behalf of the Petitioners.

15. Even according to the Petitioners, the amounts deposited
pertaining to pre-deposit before the DRAT come to about Rs.2.06
crores. Much emphasis was placed on the said aspect of the matter.
But, since the total amount due, as on today, indicated by the
Respondent Bank is in excess of Rs.5.68 crores, the said deposited
amount itself cannot be a ground to press for interim relief.

16. Even otherwise, a crucial aspect of the matter appears to be
operating against the Petitioners. In the case of Celir LLP Vs. Bafna
Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and others, (2024) 2 SCC 1, in the
light of the Petitioners having failed to tender the entire amount of
dues with all costs and charges to the Respondent No.1 Bank (secured
creditor) before publication of the auction notice, the right of
redemption of the mortgage already stands extinguished / waived.
Since the securitisation application in the present case was admittedly
filed after the auction was conducted and even the sale certificate
dated 23.11.2020 was issued, by operation of law, the Petitioners
cannot now claim a right to redeem the property. This is an additional
factor operating against the Petitioners.

17. In view of the above, list the writ petition for further consideration
on 07.10.2026, High on Board.

18. The prayer for interim relief is rejected.”

12. As noted hereinabove, the actual exercise of taking physical

possession of the secured asset is a natural consequence and fallout of

rejection of interim relief by the aforesaid above quoted reasoned order

passed by this Court on 02/09/2026. We see no extraordinary circumstance

demonstrated by the Petitioners to have a re-look at our order and the

reasons recorded in the order dated 02/09/2026 are self speaking.

Bhalerao 8
907-IA-7153-2026.doc

13. The learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the

notice dated 07/09/2026 indicated that physical possession will be taken on

09/09/2026, thereby showing that it was a notice only of two days.

14. The learned counsel for the Respondents submit that in terms of the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act) and the Rules framed

thereunder, on an order passed by the Competent Magistrate under Section

14 of the Securitisation Act, there is no statutory period prescribed and the

conduct of the Petitioners herein indicates that the aforesaid issue is being

raised only with a view to avoid the inevitable.

15. We have perused the Securitisation Act and Rules. We find that there

is no such Rule prescribing a particular time period. It is to be noted that in

the present case, the Competent Magistrate had passed the order under

Section 14 of the Securitisation Act as far back as on 24/12/2019 and the

same is awaiting execution for the past almost seven years. This is a factor to

be taken into consideration.

16. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present application and

accordingly, it is dismissed. The Petitioners are directed to add the Collector,

Pune and the Resident Naib Tehsildar, Pune, as party Respondents in this

writ petition. The amendment shall be carried out forthwith.

17. Issue notice to the newly added Respondent No. 6 – Collector and

Respondent No. 7, Resident Naib Tehsildar, returnable on 07/10/2026, when

Bhalerao 9
907-IA-7153-2026.doc

the writ petition is directed to be listed. Learned AGP waives notice on behalf

of the newly added Respondents. The said Respondents shall file reply

affidavits on or before 30/09/2026. The affidavits shall respond to the

allegations made by the Respondents in the affidavits taken on record today.

18. The Petitioners as well as Respondents are directed to serve copies of

the papers on the newly added Respondents, so that a fair chance is given to

the said newly added Respondents to file a comprehensive affidavit.

19. The Petitioners are also permitted to file an additional affidavit to

respond to the allegations made in the affidavits of the Respondents taken on

record today. The Petitioners may file their affidavit on or before

30/09/2026, with advance copies being served on all the parties.

20. List on 7th October 2026.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

Bhalerao 10

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…